► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘government’ Category

Remember When NASA Concerned Itself Primarily With Space Exploration?

by Flyovercountry ( 139 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, government, Progressives, Science, Space Exploration at March 24th, 2014 - 7:00 am

So I found this one originally when I traveled to Investor’s Business Daily. All I could think in the immediate aftermath was this. Exactly how far into the crapper does the current Administration wish to sink the once proud agency? The answer must be pretty God Damned far, since institutionalized madness seems to be the rule there, and not the exception.

We should have known that something was up when Barack Obama decided to buck the trend of every single President who had a NASA in his Administration prior, and not appoint his Vice President to head the agency. Not that Joe Biden would have been good at the job mind you, but it shows that the Bamster had something else in mind. Something else is indeed what it has turned into.

You can not make this stuff up, it’s truly too bizarre. From the IBD article linked to above:

As odd as this report is, it seems less strange when we consider that just four years ago President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden, in Bolden’s words, that “perhaps (his) foremost” priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”

Recently, NASA has done little beyond publishing papers that tow the leftist line. It’s gotten so bad at the former space agency that last week, a group of NASA rocket scientists who were not the politically connected bureaucrats chosen to manage the decline, banded together and told us all that this global warming nonsense was indeed a hoax, and that we shouldn’t take anything said by the Science Director, James Hansen, seriously, should he venture into the field of science. You may think that it really couldn’t go down from there, and you’d be wrong.

This my friends, is what the IBD article pointed me to. Putting aside for just one moment that this recreation of the Communist Manifesto penned by Karl Marx combined with the C.W. Mills Power Elite Theory, and sprinkled with some Thomas Hobbs on the side has not one thing at all to do with space or the exploration of space, one might possess just the slightest amount of curiosity as to the validity of the underlying study that has predicted the end of human existence on our planet within just a few years. Who is the author, Safa Motesharrei, and what exactly are his qualifications to make such an horrific prediction, and then have that prediction taken so seriously by supposedly educated men?

Safa Motesharrei, as it turns out is an electrical engineer, with a masters of some kind in mathematics, and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland. He wrote this thesis while working for SESYNC, a lefty activist organization predisposed to stop all fracing, the Keystone XL Pipeline, GMO Farming, and every other lunatic left environmental position which has plagued free societies for the past six decades. My bet, they had a lot to do with incandescent light bulbs being declared verboten. I’m not certain here, and I’m only spit balling, but I’d be willing to go out on a limb and suggest that maybe the conclusion for the apocalypse prediction might have been drawn prior to any actual research having taken place.

I’m certain that Mr. Motesharrei is a fine engineer and mathematician, but he is decidedly not an economist, or an historian. NASA, by putting their name and reputation behind this crap has managed to lower their stature to the level somewhere decidedly south of cocktail party joke. I wouldn’t blame the Russians one bit if they refused to continue giving our suddenly hitch hiking astronauts rides to the International Space Station. Based on baloney like this, it’s obvious that they’ll not be doing any actual science up there anyhow.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Missouri and the 10th Amendment, Governor Perry and State’s Rights

by coldwarrior ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, government, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party, Tea Parties at January 27th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

MO and The 10th Amendment…this is something we need to keep an eye on. Apparently they have had enough of DC and are ready to act. And Gov Perry makes even more sense on state’s rights. Barry Goldwater is smiling.

Missouri Makes Big States’ Rights Push


Undaunted by a 2013 effort to nullify federal gun laws, a group of Missouri legislators are launching a wider effort to push for states’ rights by attempting nullify several federal laws in the state.

USA Today reports that among the proposals in the Missouri General Assembly is a Committee on the Tenth Amendment. That panel would keep an eye out for federal legislation that infringes on Missouri’s sovereignty.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that all powers not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states lie with the states or with the people. The Missiouri lawmakers are basing their actions on the amendment.

One senator wants voters to decide on abolishing federal laws legalizing same-sex marriage, abortion, and more, USA Today reports. And another bill would exempt products made in Missouri that don’t leave the state from interstate commerce laws. All such products would have to be stamped, “Made in Missiouri.”

The group modeled its 10th Amendment bill on a model bill by the Tenth Amendment Center, which seeks to nullify what it considers intrusive federal laws.

“It does not negate anything that we currently have on the books, nor does it negate anything that we can do as a state. Meaning, if we feel that the federal government is doing their job and we like their rules, those rules will apply,” Rep. Chrissy Sommer, R-St. Charles, told USA Today.

Self-described political scientist John Davidson warned lawmakers against the bill at a public hearing, saying they are not considering the consequences. Since current Missouri law outlaws machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, he said, they would become legal under the “Made in Missouri” law so long and the guns were made in the state and were also bought there.

Separately, the Missouri Senate began hearings last week on a bill similar to one vetoed last year that would make it a crime for federal agents to enforce gun laws in the state, reports The Washington Post. The bill calls for jailing violators for up to a year and fining them as much as $1,000. It also would allow some school officials to carry concealed weapons, even where local laws prohibit concealed carry.

And….Rick Perry on State’s Rights



Rick Perry speaks with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos at the World Economic Forum.

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry is defending the rights of states, such as Colorado and Washington, to legalize marijuana, and he said Thursday that Texas has taken steps toward decriminalizing the drug.

Perry was on a panel discussing drug laws that included former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Annan and Santos said drug laws had proved ineffective and had made criminals out of generations of young people, as well as helped empower drug cartels.

Perry said he doesn’t believe in legalizing certain drugs, according to an account of the panel by U.S. News & World Report. But Perry also emphasized that he is a staunch believer in states’ rights on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

“States should be allowed to make those decisions,” he said.

Perry said that Texas has begun to “implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” of marijuana. He cited specialized drug courts that offer treatment instead of jail time and the reduction of penalties for minor drug offenses.

The governor’s spokesman, Lucy Nashed, sidestepped questions about whether Perry supported decriminalizing marijuana in Texas — where having or selling small amounts are misdemeanors — saying only that drug courts have worked in Texas and should be an example to other states and countries.

“He’s very much for rehabbing and a diversionary program [rather] than sending people directly to jail,” Nashed said. “This is for nonviolent offenders and, for a lot of circumstances, it’s the right policy.”

The governor said he doubted Texas would legalize pot anytime soon.

“We certainly would never jump out in front of the parade,” Perry said, according to U.S. News.

Perry’s ability to push for a major policy change is limited at this point. He’s leaving office after this year, and the Legislature isn’t scheduled to meet again in his tenure.

During his four days in Switzerland, Perry has been meeting with entrepreneurs, heads of state and other luminaries. He’s posted pictures of himself on Twitter with computer company president Michael Dell, former presidential candidate and publishing executive Steve Forbes, and Santos.

Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy (From National Review)

by Mars ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Corruption, Crime, Democratic Party, Elections, government, Politics, Progressives at January 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Voter fraud is discussed over and over and we keep being told by the same liberal talking heads that it is not happening and would be too difficult to achieve. Really? Difficult? Tell that to the City of New York. What is amazing is the response of the elected officials to the revelations from the investigation. Voter fraud and corruption always go hand in hand.

January 12, 2014 6:30 PM
Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy
Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents.
By John Fund

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed–style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Greg Soumas, president of New York’s BOE, offered a justification for calling in the prosecutors: “If something was done in an untoward fashion, it was only done by DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.” The Board is bipartisan, and all but two of its members voted with Soumas. The sole exceptions were Democrat Jose Araujo, who abstained because the DOI report implicated him in hiring his wife and sister-and-law for Board jobs, and Republican Simon Shamoun.

Good-government groups are gobsmacked at Soumas’s refusal to smell the stench of corruption in his patronage-riddled empire. “They should focus not on assigning blame to others, but on taking responsibility for solving the problems themselves,” Dick Dadey of the watchdog group Citizens Union told the Daily News. “It’s a case of the Board of Elections passing the buck.” DOI officials respond that the use of undercover agents is routine in anti-corruption probes and that people should carefully read the 70-page report they’ve filed before criticizing it. They are surprised how little media attention their report has received.

You’d think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the “voter” was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and “play dumb” in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

Shooting the messenger has been a typical reaction in other states when people have demonstrated just how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe had three of his assistants visit precincts during New Hampshire’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked poll workers whether their books listed the names of several voters, all deceased individuals still listed on voter-registration rolls. Poll workers handed out ten ballots, never once asking for a photo ID. O’Keefe’s team immediately gave back the ballots, unmarked, to precinct workers. Debbie Lane, a ballot inspector at one of the Manchester polling sites, later said: “I wasn’t sure what I was allowed to do. . . . I can’t tell someone not to vote, I suppose.” The only precinct in which O’Keefe or his crew did not obtain a ballot was one in which the local precinct officer had personally known the dead “voter.”

New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch, sputtered when asked about O’Keefe’s video, and he condemned the effort to test the election system even though no actual votes were cast. “They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they’re found guilty of some criminal act,” he roared. But cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the GOP state legislature later approved a voter-ID bill, with enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Despite an exhaustive and intrusive investigation, no charges were ever filed against any of O’Keefe’s associates.

Later in 2012, in Washington, D.C., one of O’Keefe’s assistants was able to obtain Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot even though Holder is 62 years old and bears no resemblance to the 22-year-old white man who obtained it merely by asking if Eric Holder was on the rolls. But the Department of Justice, which is currently suing Texas to block that state’s photo-ID law, dismissed the Holder ballot incident as “manufactured.” The irony was lost on the DOJ that Holder, a staunch opponent of voter-ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by a white man because Washington, D.C., has no voter-ID law. Polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans — including clear majorities of African Americans and Hispanics — support such laws.

Liberals who oppose ballot-security measures claim that there are few prosecutions for voter fraud, which they take to mean that fraud doesn’t happen. But as the New York DOI report demonstrates, it is comically easy, given the sloppy-voter registration records often kept in America, to commit voter fraud in person. (A 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that nationwide, at least 1.8 million deceased voters are still registered to vote.) And unless someone confesses, in-person voter fraud is very difficult to detect — or stop. New York’s Gothamist news service reported last September that four poll workers in Brooklyn reported they believed people were trying to vote in the name of other registered voters. Police officers observed the problems but did nothing because voter fraud isn’t under the police department’s purview.

What the DOI investigators were able to do was eerily similar to actual fraud that has occurred in New York before. In 1984, Brooklyn’s Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, released a state grand-jury report on a successful 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes in local, state, and congressional elections. Just like the DOI undercover operatives, the conspirators cast votes at precincts in the names of dead, moved, and bogus voters. The grand jury recommended voter ID, a basic election-integrity measure that New York has steadfastly refused to implement.

In states where non-photo ID is required, it’s also all too easy to manufacture records that allow people to vote. In 2012, the son of Congressman Jim Moran, the Democrat who represents Virginia’s Washington suburbs, had to resign as field director for his father’s campaign after it became clear that he had encouraged voter fraud. Patrick Moran was caught advising an O’Keefe videographer on how to commit in-person voter fraud. The scheme involved using a personal computer to forge utility bills that would satisfy Virginia’s voter-ID law and then relying on the assistance of Democratic lawyers stationed at the polls to make sure the fraudulent votes were counted. Last year, Virginia tightened its voter-ID law and ruled that showing a utility bill was no longer sufficient to obtain a ballot.

Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem? An ounce of prevention — in the form of voter ID and better training of poll workers — should be among the minimum precautions taken to prevent an electoral miscarriage or meltdown in a close race.

After all, even a small number of votes can have sweeping consequences. Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 votes, which allowed them to pass Obamacare. Months after the Obamacare vote, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority finished comparing criminal records with voting rolls and identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken–Coleman race. Fox News random interviews with ten of those felons found that nine had voted for Franken, backing up national academic studies that show felons tend to vote strongly for Democrats.

Minnesota Majority took its findings to prosecutors across the state, but very few showed any interest in pursuing the issue. Some did, though, and 177 people have been convicted as of mid 2012 — not just “accused” but actually convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Probably the only reason the number of convictions isn’t higher is that the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that the person must have been both ineligible and must have “knowingly” voted unlawfully. Anyone accused of fraud is apt to get off by claiming he didn’t know he’d done anything wrong.

Given that we now know for certain how easy it is to commit undetectable voter fraud and how serious the consequences can be, it’s truly bizarre to have officials at the New York City Board of Elections and elsewhere savage those who shine a light on the fact that their modus operandi invites fraud. One might even think that they’re covering up their incompetence or that they don’t want to pay attention to what crimes could be occurring behind the curtains at their polling places. Or both.


Pussy Riot, Putin, Freedom, and Religion

by coldwarrior ( 152 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, government, Media, Open thread, Orthodox Christianity, Politics, Russia at January 8th, 2014 - 7:00 am

This is the most sane piece of writing yet on the subject of Pussy Riot. It is very informative and very correct. To understand what happened in Russia with this group and the government and the Orthodox Church, one must understand the role each plays in Russia:

Pussy Riot is Free! But They Aren’t Russia’s Key to Freedom.

There’s a huge disparity between what American media is reporting and what Pussy Riot really stands for.

Pussy Riot is free! The western world has poured out support for these daring punk rock feminists in their pursuit for life, liberty, and so on and so forth in their underdog fight against Soviet Premier Bond villain Russian President Vladimir Putin, and you should be overjoyed. At least, that’s the narrative dominating American media. Unfortunately, this reductive view of the affair overlooks the damage groups like Pussy Riot may do to the cause of freedom — and the group’s own disregard for liberal values.

It may surprise American readers to find out that Pussy Riot’s own countrymen are hardly as sympathetic to the band’s plight. The Levada Center, a major survey conductor, shows that few Russians think the women deserved little or no punishment. Often, the plurality believe the punishment was deserved or insufficient. Even educated, western-leaning, liberal, anti-Putin individuals look unfavorably upon them. The face of the political opposition, Alexei Navalny, derided Pussy Riot as “fools who commit petty crimes for the sake of publicity.”

Let’s recap what happened. In February 2012, a herd of ski-masked individuals stormed the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, one of the most venerated religious sites in Russia, called for Putin’s removal from power, and sang anti-Christian insults.

Three members of Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Yekaterina Samutsevich, and Maria Alyokhina, were charged with “flagrant violation of public order, expressing clear disrespect for society, committed… on the grounds of political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred or enmity or hatred or animosity towards any social group.” This crime is punishable up to five years hard labor or seven years in prison. All three women were found guilty and sentenced to two years in penal colonies. An appeals court quickly released Samutsevich on probation. After serving over a year, Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina were also released, due to a federal amnesty bill.

The Russian government reminded the world why it ranks so poorly on so many freedom indexes, and the the Western world was quick to admonish the abuse of Pussy Riot’s rights. Without a doubt, the two-year sentences were a gross overstep, demonstrating how willing Russia is to suppress dissident voices. Pussy Riot’s release may have been abbreviated by the nation’s legal standards, but their offensive-yet-harmless act never warranted imprisonment in the first place. A society that punishes civil disobedience so harshly is not a free society.

But American media has ignorantly deduced that because Pussy Riot is the enemy of our enemy, the band must be our friend. They frame the affair as clear-cut “good vs. evil” between Pussy Riot and Putin. GQ is not alone in painting these women as “freedom fighters.” One might expect conservative outlets to be more critical of the anti-Christian antics, but even the National Review sides with the band.

Without a doubt, Pussy Riot should be free to express its beliefs without the fear of imprisonment, but they themselves are not freedom fighters. They have said contradictory things about freedom, but in no uncertain terms have described themselves “Trotskyists” and “anarchists” who are “part of the global anti-capitalist movement.” Numerous times in the past, the women of Pussy Riot have also committed lewd and destructive acts as part of the “art terrorist” group Voina, which means “War.”

Denis Bochkarev cc byDenis Bochkarev cc byTerrorizing people, insulting their beliefs, and damaging property certainly doesn’t mesh with America’s sense of promoting freedom, and it makes one wonder how Pussy Riot would proceed if they could depose Putin. Would they suddenly embrace free minds and markets, or would they follow in the footsteps of their ideological forebearers and punish people they brand as dissidents? I’d cautiously guess the latter.

Even so, the Western audience might expect Russians to stand in solidarity with Pussy Riot and praise how much international attention they drew to the nation’s troubled legal system.

At least in Pussy Riot’s case, the band virtually guaranteed this would never happen. To understand why, one must understand that Russia’s relationship with religion is quite different than America’s, and it gives authority a much greater status.

Antagonizing the Orthodox Church is not popular, even among the youth. Orthodoxy formed the legal and cultural foundations of contemporary Russia over a thousand years ago. Religion was an integral part of national identity until the Soviets came into power. The communists persecuted Christians and even destroyed the cathedral (later rebuilt) where Pussy Riot protested. The Church again has widespread support, and is far more popular than Putin.

Pussy Riot also represents chaos, and Russians do not like chaos. Throughout history, they have put faith in strongmen-type leaders to prevent it. Chaos, for Russians, is a bogeyman, and the wound of chaos has been reopened in the lifetime of most Russians. In the 1990s, the nation was subject to the lawlessness of widespread organized crime and domestic warfare. And, the threat of a nation destabilized by terrorism is far more real for Russians than it is for Americans. The nation has seen many terrorist attacks, and continues to be subject to bombings. Pussy Riot’s “propaganda by deed” rubs Russians about as well as bomb threat hoaxes did Americans post-9/11.

Whether or not correlation implies causation, Putin’s ascent to power has generally marked the reemergence of a stable, prosperous, and internationally important Russia, and citizens are unfortunately willing to compromise their rights for that kind of security. Pussy Riot’s antics were at best a garish parody of Western secular values, and at worst a reminder of darker, more chaotic times in their own history. It is no surprise that the average Russian thinks far more favorably of Putin than Pussy Riot.

Americans are right to criticize the Russian government for trampling human rights. But, if we want to work toward greater freedom throughout the world, we may first want to focus on our own shortcomings (some of which are not unlike Russia’s). Then, if we hope to have a positve impact on another nation, we should understand that the antics of groups like Pussy Riot may actually be counterproductive.

NC City Councilman Resigns…in Klingon

by Macker ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under government, Headlines, taxation at January 3rd, 2014 - 10:42 pm

Here’s the letter:

He isn’t a Demo☭rat either…otherwise we’d all have a field day with this. Perhaps we should wish him…Qa’pla!

Ghost of Goldwater Past?

by coldwarrior ( 82 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Economy, government, Open thread, Politics at December 19th, 2013 - 8:00 am

Well, what do we have here? The ghost of Goldwater past? Has he been visiting the big government, gimmegimmegimmes? Are the people waking up to him at the foot of their bed ready to admonish them about dreary manacle-clanging governments in the future?


This is progress. Progress, i pray, toward a better nation where there are more personal liberties, states rights, and less government.


Record High in U.S. Say Big Government Greatest Threat

Now 72% say it is greater threat than big business or big labor

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65% in 1999 and 2000. Big government has always topped big business and big labor, including in the initial asking in 1965, but just 35% named it at that time.

Trend: Views of Biggest Threat to U.S. in Future

The latest update comes from a Dec. 5-8 poll. Gallup has documented a steady increase in concern about big government since 2009, rising from 55% in March 2009 to 64% in November 2011 and 72% today. This suggests that government policies specific to the period, such as the Affordable Care Act — perhaps coupled with recent revelations of government spying tactics by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — may be factors.

Currently, 21% name big business as the greatest threat, while 5%, a record low, say big labor. The high point for big labor was 29% in 1965. No more than 11% of Americans have chosen big labor since 1995, clearly reflecting the decline of the labor movement in the United States in recent decades.

The historical high choosing big business, 38%, came in 2002, after a series of corporate scandals rocked major corporations including Enron and Tyco. Also at that time, Americans may have been less willing to choose government given the rally in support for government institutions and officials after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Americans were also more likely to view big business as a big threat during the recent recession, with more than three in 10 choosing it in 2008 and 2009, a time when many large corporations, including financial and automotive companies, failed or were in danger of failing without government intervention. But fewer Americans now view big business as a threat — the current 21% is the lowest Gallup has measured since 1983.

Republicans Especially Likely to See Big Government as Threat

Even though Americans have always viewed big government as the greatest threat, the degree to which they do so has varied. In recent decades, since the start of the Clinton administration, perceptions of big government as a threat have varied depending on the party of the president. Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, an average of 64% of Americans have named big government as the greatest threat. That is up from an average 56% during George W. Bush’s administration from 2001-2008, but similar to the 65% average from 1993-2000 during the Clinton administration.

This pattern is largely driven by Republicans, who generally are more likely to be concerned about the size and power of government, and this concern is amplified when a Democrat is president. Democrats are more likely to see government as a threat when a Republican is in office; however, they tend to see government as less threatening than Republicans do, and their concern about big government topped out at 62% in 2005 under Bush.

Trend: Perceptions of "Big Government" as Biggest Threat to the Future of the Country, by Political Party Identification

During the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan administrations, party differences were much more modest than they are today.

Each party group currently rates big government as the greatest threat to the country, including a record-high 92% of Republicans and 71% of independents, as well as 56% of Democrats. Democrats are most likely of the partisan groups to name big business as the biggest threat, at 36%; relatively few Republicans, 4%, view big business as the most threatening.

Views of Biggest Threat to Future of the Country, by Political Party, December 2013


Americans have consistently viewed big government as a greater threat to the United States than either big business or big labor, but never more than they do now. That may be partly a reaction to an administration that favors the use of government to solve problems. Also, the revelation of widespread government monitoring of U.S. Internet activity may be a factor in raising Americans’ concern about the government. The threat of big business may seem diminished now, during a relatively calm period for big business, with rising stock values and relatively few major corporate scandals such as occurred in the early 2000s. Also, the labor movement is far less influential in U.S. policy today than in the past, including in 1965, when Gallup first asked the question.

In the future, Americans likely will continue to view big government as the greatest threat of the three, partly because of Republicans’ reluctance to rely on government to solve problems, and because Democrats and independents are also inclined to view big government as a greater threat than big business or big labor. But the percentage of Americans viewing big government as the greatest threat will also likely to continue to vary, in response to current conditions in the political and business environments.

Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

by Mars ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Crime, Democratic Party, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Liberal Fascism, Nazism, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Second Amendment at December 16th, 2013 - 7:00 am


Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

Written by: Tara Dodrill Self Defense December 6, 2013 1 Comment

Lawsuit states that Montana gunmakers want the federal government to “butt out” of gun sales which take place within the state, and they’ve sued the US Justice Department in an attempt to do just that.

The lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association maintains the US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to enact regulations and restrictions pertaining to guns made, sold, and kept inside the State of Montana.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to uphold the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was enacted in 2009 and which says the federal government does not have authority over firearms that are made and sold within the state of Montana. For firearms to not be subject to federal laws, each gun must be labeled “Made In Montana,” according to the ’09 law. Other states have implemented similar laws, although their future is uncertain.

A lower court and appeals court ruled against Montana’s law.

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the high court to uphold the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th Amendment says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The 10th Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, actually wrote the Supreme Court justices a personal letter in November, explaining the rationale behind the law. Such a letter is unique and was separate from the legal briefs.

Marbut told local media that he wants to make a bolt-action, small, youth-model rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo. The gun would be sold within the state. Marbut’s plan to manufacture the youth rifle has been thwarted by federal officials and courts who say the gun would be illegal.

Marbut told the Supreme Court justices:

“The natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse.

Advocates of the law have garnered legal support from the attorneys general from the states of Montana, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

An excerpt from the Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit reads:

The wholesale stripping of independent sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to abuse. The outrage that is our $17 trillion national debt [which amounts to more than $149,000 per taxpayer] may be the worst example. By borrowing more money than the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not consent to the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still, they will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is tyranny.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit also argues that “dual sovereignty” should be restored within the US. Marbut staunchly feels that the lawsuit and the 10th Amendment protections extend far beyond the issue of gun rights.

Read the entire article here.

The Great Guns & Ammo Panic of 2013

by huckfunn ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, DOJ, Economy, Eric Holder, Free Speech, government, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Second Amendment, Special Report, Weapons at December 7th, 2013 - 9:55 am

While lurking on The Blogmacracy  this morning, I saw that Mike C. suggested that we have a gun thread about the “Great Guns & Ammo Panic of 2013”. So here it is.

This past summer I was sitting in the waiting room of the Grease Monkey lube shop in Clovis, NM while my oil was being changed. I picked up the current issue of Guns & Ammo magazine and the cover story was “G&A Perspective: Panic Purchases and the Volatile Ammo Market”. The article explored the various theories on the empty ammo shelves at gun shops and the resulting spike in prices of the most common calibers as well as the shortage of AR-style rifles. The conclusion was that gun ownership has now gone mainstream due to the gun control efforts of Obama and his democrat cohorts. People who have never considered owning a firearm have now armed themselves and are taking to the ranges. Many people are hoarding ammo. All ammo manufacturers are currently running at maximum output having added more capacity and round-the-clock shifts.

Read the entire article here.

Drug tunnel between Tijuana and San Diego shows failure of drug war

by Rodan ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under government, Headlines, Mexico at November 1st, 2013 - 10:01 pm

Reading this and seeing the sophistication of the tunnel convinces me the uselessness of the drug war. Where there is demand there will be a supply. The San Diego sector of the US border with Mexico is heavily patrolled and fences. Yet a tunnel was dug underneath to bring in drugs.

A drug-smuggling tunnel equipped with electricity, ventilation and a rail system has been found connecting San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico.

Authorities seized more than eight tons of marijuana and 325lb (147kg) of cocaine in the discovery.

Officials have not revealed the exact length or location of the recently finished tunnel, but Mexican media report it is near Tijuana’s airport.

More than 75 such secret tunnels have been discovered since 2008.

There are probably even more tunnels that have not been discovered. It’s time to rethink the war on drugs and this tunnel is a symbol of it’s failure.

A View on Obamacare

by Mars ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Election 2014, Free Speech, government, Guest Post, Health Care, Healthcare, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Unions at October 25th, 2013 - 5:00 pm

Christopher Ruddy: Don’t Delay Obamacare

Wednesday, 23 Oct 2013 07:50 PM

By Christopher Ruddy

I’m baffled by calls from opponents of Obamacare to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

There is growing support among Democrats, and perhaps even the White House, to support a delay.

Now, a number of conservatives I respect are among those who support a one-year delay as a first step toward abolishing Obamacare. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is now seeking to delay implementation of the individual mandate for at least six months.

The thinking apparently is that once Obamacare is fully in force, it will be with us forever. I believe that is not necessarily the case.

The key to stopping Obamacare is for its opponents to win in congressional elections in 2014. Delaying Obamacare only helps the Democrats who support this boondoggle.

Just look at the poll numbers showing widespread opposition to Obamacare. A CNN poll last month disclosed that 57 percent of Americans now oppose the bill, and just 39 percent support it. An earlier survey by a Heritage Foundation affiliate found that 77 percent of respondents opposed Obamacare.

Even the labor unions that backed Obama and had supported his healthcare reform bill have now turned against it over concerns that members could lose their current healthcare coverage, and the powerful AFL-CIO is calling for significant changes in the law.

To top it off, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who helped write the Affordable Care Act, has admitted that the law has become a “huge train wreck.”

President Obama maintains that his election and re-election demonstrated support for the bill.

The truth is that neither election was a referendum on Obamacare. In 2008 he ran against the George W. Bush legacy, and in 2012 against Mitt Romney, making Romney the issue.
But the 2014 elections could prove to be that referendum on Obamacare — a vote that produces a Republican landslide.

By Election Day next year, young people who backed Obama will have seen the law’s full wrath in skyrocketing insurance premiums or the fines they will have to pay for not carrying insurance.

In fact, Americans who are currently insured and small businesses will see premiums soar, while Medicare recipients will be harmed by $700 billion in Medicare cuts and reduced payments to providers.

So let Obamacare be implemented and allow the voters to decide come 2014.

Already Obama has shown that he wants delays and has made revisions to the law, including arbitrarily delaying implementation of the employer mandate to provide insurance — despite the fact that he has no constitutional right to change the law passed by Congress.

Columnist George Will wrote: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?”

Another columnist, Charles Krauthammer, observed: “The Constitution says the executive has to faithfully execute the laws and here it is faithfully ignoring a law it doesn’t like.”

I am shocked that as Republican members seek to help Obama get his law delayed, there has been no uproar in Congress about the president’s decision to begin ruling by decree. But on Oct. 1, the day when the Affordable Care Act was supposed to allow access to the new healthcare exchanges, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the administration’s decision to delay the employer mandate for a year.

The suit was filed on behalf of Florida dentist Dr. Larry Kawa, who declared: “The president has no more power than you or I do to change the law.”

Obama is afraid that if the law is fully implemented, there will be a massive blowback against the Democrats who support it going into the critical 2014 elections.

The blowback is becoming evident as Americans see firsthand the unfolding disaster of the $300 million healthcare website that doesn’t work.

So, let’s not play Obama’s delay game. Let the law go into effect as required and let the voters decide next November about its future.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/obamacare-affordable-care-delay/2013/10/23/id/532757?ns_mail_uid=25479560&ns_mail_job=1542974_10232013&promo_code=15476-1#ixzz2igT1MpqD

As many of you know I was down for the fight against this disaster because I saw how it was going to hurt families, my own included. Well, at this point I agree with the many on here who said we should let it go and hang it around the neck of the Democrats. Better to deal with the small fine and minimal damage this year than let it keep growing and growing until it’s full destructive power has been reached.

Let this be the Dems albatross into 2014, let them own the damn thing. Not that I expect the Republican elites to follow this tactic. So, I will be recommending to everyone to follow Glenn Becks advice. Pull your funds from the Republican National machine, make it clear why you are doing this. But, follow this up by supporting your local politicians that actually do stand for what you believe, take away the lifeline the elites rely on and start making changes at your local level. Support who you feel comfortable with, you will be surprised how many will agree with you. I may not have funds to give, but all my support on the street will be given only to candidates that I can agree with most of the time.

Term limits would also be nice but there is no chance that it will ever be implemented. Once you have created a permanent political class, those people cease to act in the interests of their constituents and will only act in their own self interest. This is a destructive poison running throughout our political process.